Miliband Gets Some Momentum

By Iain Martin

The poor growth figures have spooked the Cameroons. Suddenly ministers have discovered they might need a strategy for unleashing growth, to encourage individual and corporate enterprise, and that growth will not happen on its own by magic because the deficit is due to come down. Voices are being raised urging the government to clear the path of small business by taking a broom to excessive regulation. I’ve got a longer blog post in the works on this, but one possible observation is that this is what happens when politicians travel without an economic compass. Or a map. They only realize they are lost when night starts to fall and the weather turns nasty.

Such stuff—pro-growth supply side reform—has until now been highly unfashionable in Cameron and Osborne land. The PM’s people have seemed more interested in “general well-being” and the Chancellor is wary of anything he considers dogmatic (such as strong beliefs).

To complicate matters for the pair, at just this moment Mili E looks to have got some momentum.

A new poll gives Labour a ten point lead. It was taken before the GDP news.

“Ipsos-MORI’s monthly political monitor poll for Reuters has topline figures of CON 33%(-5), LAB 43%(+4), LDEM 13%(+2). This is the biggest Labour lead since the election that never was in September/October 2007 and significantly bigger than the leads of 4 or 5 points that YouGov, ICM, ComRes and Angus Reid have all been showing this month.”

With the coalition’s honeymoon over, the tough period predicted for Cameron as the cuts get underway is beginning.

Another indication that Miliband is set for a few months of progress comes from Scotland. UK Polling Report, again, cites a poll from north of the border earlier this week. The Holyrood elections are scheduled for May this year:

Labour is becoming the home for anti-coalition voters in Scotland and getting back to the kind of ratings it enjoyed there when Tony Blair stood on the brink of power in the mid-1990s. If Labour’s current strong showing is maintained, and Alex Salmond is unseated as First Minister, Miliband will get a big boost via Scotland in the Spring.

A caveat. Labour piled up big poll leads against Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s and she went on to win subsequent general elections. But she had a very clear view of how growth and prosperity should be secured. Attlee, another big beast PM, in the second half of the 1940s had a similarly clear view of what he wanted to achieve—although having done it he ended up leading a tired government that had no plan for re-election.

The Thatcher government, no matter where you stand, knew where it wanted to go in large part because of the clear beliefs rooted in the ideology and economic analysis of its leader.

Comments (5 of 15)

Duc De: you have to let the facts speak for themselves. Mrs Thatcher and Blair were the only post war PMs to win full-term consecutive elections in Elizabeth's reign. That's my definition of popularity.

You've got to stop thinking of right-wing Conservatism as a return to the past. Mrs Thatcher is an inspiration to thousands of young Conservatives and ordinary voters because of the principles she espoused but only began to implement. In modern times there is nothing old-fashioned about IDS's welfare revolution or abolishing the Bank of England's monopoly (unless you go back over a hundred years).

It might be that such ideas are no longer capable of gaining a majority in the House. However, it's also a fact that since Mrs Thatcher's landslide victory of 1987, nobody has tried. The rest of the time, the only choice the electorate has been given was between socialism and slightly watered-down socialism over and over again: MacMillan v Gaitskell, Heath v Wilson, Major v Kinnock and Brown v Cameron. Whoever wins, the result is the same: higher taxes, spending, debt, inflation and unemployment. No wonder the real winner from recent elections has been the stay-at-home party.

10:57 am January 28, 2011

FF wrote :

The Conservatives were getting getting about 42% of the vote in elections held under Margaret Thatcher, but that was in an environment of a hopelessly divided Labour Party. Elections are zero sum: what's bad for Labour is good for the Conservatives and vice versa. Labour are better organised now than they were when Thatcher was in power, or indeed than the Conservatives were when Blair was in power. This means that opposition disarray is not helping Cameron's government, but it doesn't mean he's worse than the previous Prime Ministers - just less fortunate.

Miliband looks to be a more competent leader precisely because Labour has, so far, managed to avoid opposition collapse. He's had some success with his attacks on the Coalition - only skirmishes, it's true, but it will help Labour morale as they adjust to life in the wilderness.

10:17 am January 28, 2011

Hannam wrote :

Margaret Thatcher has consistently been voted Britains greatest peace time Prime Minister in various polls. Isn't that popular? I wasn't aware Miliband was leading Labour; he is almost invisible.

10:13 pm January 27, 2011

FF wrote :

I don't think Margaret Thatcher was ever that popular. Indeed before the Falklands War she was distinctly unpopular. But she faced a divided opposition (SDP split and so on) which put the electoral arithmetic into her favour. The current Conservative leadership is less fortunate in being opposed by a Labour Party that is still disciplined and competently led by Miliband. They would be unwise to retreat to an ideological redoubt. This would only reinforce the public's perception - according to polls - of the Conservatives being uncaring and not representing people like them.

8:10 pm January 27, 2011

Hugo Chav wrote :

Is Cameron a Heath or a Thatcher?

Fraser Nelson

3rd February 2010

Fraser Nelson says that electoral victory is not enough. To be a great Tory prime minister, David Cameron must be bold enough to abandon Labour’s failed agenda entirely and implement his own